Introducing the participant-generated experience and satisfaction (PaGES) index: a novel, longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation tool

被引:1
作者
Symon, Andrew [1 ]
Lightly, Kate [2 ]
Howard, Rachel [3 ]
Mundle, Shuchita [4 ]
Faragher, Brian [5 ]
Hanley, Molly [3 ]
Durocher, Jill [6 ]
Winikoff, Beverly [6 ]
Weeks, Andrew [7 ]
机构
[1] Univ Dundee, Mother & Infant Res Unit, 11 Airlie Pl, Dundee DD1 4HJ, Scotland
[2] Univ Liverpool, Liverpool Womens Hosp, Crown St, Liverpool L8 7SS, England
[3] Univ Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, England
[4] All India Inst Med Sci, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Nagpur, India
[5] Univ Liverpool Liverpool Sch Trop Med, Pembroke Pl, Liverpool L3 5QA, England
[6] Gynuity Hlth Projects GHP, 220 East 42nd St, New York, NY 10017 USA
[7] Univ Liverpool, Liverpool Womens Hosp, Sanyu Res Dept, Crown St, Liverpool L8 7SS, England
关键词
Participant; Experience; Satisfaction; Patient-generated; Qualitative research; Quantitative research; Instrument; Birth; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; OUTCOMES; CARE; INTERVENTIONS; LANGUAGE; TRIALS;
D O I
10.1186/s12874-023-02016-1
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Patient-Reported Outcomes or Experience Measures (PROMS / PREMS) are routinely used in clinical studies to assess participants' views and experiences of trial interventions and related quality of life. Purely quantitative approaches lack the necessary detail and flexibility to understand the real-world impact of study interventions on participants, according to their own priorities. Conversely, purely qualitative assessments are time consuming and usually restricted to a small, possibly unrepresentative, sub-sample. This paper, which reports a pilot study within a randomised controlled trial of induction of labour, reports the feasibility, and acceptability of the Participant-Generated Experience and Satisfaction (PaGES) Index, a new mixed qualitative / quantitative PREM tool.Methods The single-sheet PaGES Index was completed by hypertensive pregnant women in two hospitals in Nagpur, India before and after taking part in the 'Misoprostol or Oxytocin for Labour Induction' (MOLI) randomised controlled trial. Participants recorded aspects of the impending birth they considered most important, and then ranked them. After the birth, participants completed the PaGES Index again, this time also scoring their satisfaction with each item. Forms were completed on paper in the local language or in English, supported by Research Assistants. Following translation (when needed), responses were uploaded to a REDCap database, coded in Excel and analysed thematically. A formal qualitative evaluation (qMOLI) was also conducted to obtain stakeholder perspectives of the PaGES Index and the wider trial. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants, and focus groups with researchers and clinicians. Data were managed using NVivo 12 software and analysed using the framework approach.Results Participants and researchers found the PaGES Index easy to complete and administer; mothers valued the opportunity to speak about their experience. Qualitative analysis of the initial 68 PaGES Index responses identified areas of commonality and difference among participants and also when comparing antenatal and postnatal responses. Theme citations and associated comments scores were fairly stable before and after the birth. The qMOLI phase, comprising 53 one-to-one interviews with participants and eight focus groups involving 83 researchers and clinicians, provided support that the PaGES Index was an acceptable and even helpful means of capturing participant perspectives.Conclusions Subjective participant experiences are an important aspect of clinical trials. The PaGES Index was found to be a feasible and acceptable measure that unites qualitative research's explanatory power with the comparative power of quantitative designs. It also offers the opportunity to conduct a before-and-after evaluation, allowing researchers to examine the expectations and actual experiences of all clinical trial participants, not just a small sub-sample. This study also shows that, with appropriate research assistant input, the PaGES Index can be used in different languages by participants with varying literacy levels.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 37 条
  • [1] Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis
    不详
    [J]. HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 2016, 20 (65) : 1 - +
  • [2] Patients' needs, satisfaction, and health related quality of life: Towards a comprehensive model
    Asadi-Lari M.
    Tamburini M.
    Gray D.
    [J]. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2 (1)
  • [3] Benson T., 2022, PATIENT REPORTED OUT
  • [4] Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare
    Black, Nick
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2013, 346
  • [5] How does satisfaction with the health-care system relate to patient experience?
    Bleich, Sara N.
    Oezaltin, Emre
    Murray, Christopher J. L.
    [J]. BULLETIN OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, 2009, 87 (04) : 271 - 278
  • [6] Oral Misoprostol alone versus oral misoprostol followed by oxytocin for labour induction in women with hypertension in pregnancy (MOLI): protocol for a randomised controlled trial
    Bracken, Hillary
    Lightly, Kate
    Mundle, Shuchita
    Kerr, Robbie
    Faragher, Brian
    Easterling, Thomas
    Leigh, Simon
    Turner, Mark
    Alfirevic, Zarko
    Winikoff, Beverly
    Weeks, Andrew
    [J]. BMC PREGNANCY AND CHILDBIRTH, 2021, 21 (01)
  • [7] Braun V., 2013, SUCCESSFUL QUALITATI
  • [8] Measuring quality of life - Are quality of life measures patient centred?
    Carr, AJ
    Higginson, IJ
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2001, 322 (7298): : 1357 - 1360
  • [9] Cella D, 2015, PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT, P1, DOI 10.3768/rtipress.2015.bk.0014.1509
  • [10] Article three in a series of ten How to develop a condition-specific PROM
    Comins, Jonathan D.
    Brodersen, John
    Siersma, Volkert
    Jensen, Jonas
    Hansen, Christian Fugl
    Krogsgaard, Michael R.
    [J]. SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS, 2021, 31 (06) : 1216 - 1224